Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

If I Were President

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
If I were to become President of the United States in January 2017, here's how I would run the country:

Social Issues: I would outlaw abortion. I would abolish laws which restrict access to non-abortifacient contraceptives. I would subsidize condoms. I would reduce regulations on adoption and foster care; gay couples would be allowed to adopt like straight couples do. I would deport all illegal immigrants and secure the border but allow for much more extensive cross-border work programs like those that existed until Cesar Chavez came along. I would end racial profiling and change affirmative action to be income-based instead of race-based. I would try to reduce racial bias among police officers. I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else). I would establish an extrajudicial death squad that oversaw the summary execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers who have already been convicted and sentenced. This extrajudicial force would answer only to me. I'd have prisons hand over these inmates to the death squad, which would escort them to a certain facility elsewhere and execute them. Murderers would usually be executed within a week of conviction. I would make Voter ID mandatory but also make them easy/cheap/free to get. I would severely reduce media bias by whatever means necessary.

Economy: I would implement a progressive income tax. I'd raise taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor. I would reduce the number of regulations that are put on people trying to start their own businesses. I would end social security completely. I would raise the military budget to a steady 700 billion a year. I would not significantly alter the status quo on forms of welfare other than Social Security, though I would eliminate subsidies on some things. I would spend money on restoring our nation's infrastructure. And throughout all this the U.S. National Debt would be lowered slightly each year of my administration. Perhaps a net 250 billion dollar reduction each year. I would give up more public land for private use, though not an insane amount of land. I would provide more funding to NASA, especially funding for economic exploitation of outer space.

Foreign Policy: I would rename NATO the "Allied Powers Treaty Organization" (APTO) so that it could be expanded far beyond the North Atlantic region. I would try to expand APTO as much as I could; Ukraine would be offered APTO membership and if they accepted I would have Crimea invaded by a large military force and restored to Ukrainian hands. Then I'd do the same in the Donbass region. After Ukraine's territorial sovereignty was restored I'd drop all sanctions on Russia. I would burn all foreign opium poppy and cocaine plant fields in countries where it is illegal; in countries where legal, I would do so anyway if rates of smuggling into the U.S. exceeded a certain point. I would limit the number of refugees from countries suffering from large amounts of terrorism; instead, I would try to end the conflict in question, by military force if necessary. I would not try to use immigration policy to slow the white loss of majority status.

Thoughts?
And how about you? What would be you do?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 4:48:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And how about you? What would be you do?

Will respond to this when It isn't midnight.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 5:27:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
If I were to become President of the United States in January 2017, here's how I would run the country:

I would outlaw abortion.
How would you enforce it?
I would abolish laws which restrict access to non-abortifacient contraceptives. I would subsidize condoms.
I don't know about a subsidy, but a lot more people should use contraceptives.
I would reduce regulations on adoption and foster care; gay couples would be allowed to adopt like straight couples do.
Agreed.
I would end racial profiling and change affirmative action to be income-based instead of race-based. I would try to reduce racial bias among police officers.
Good ideas.
I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else).
I don't agree with growing small scale farms for personal use, but otherwise good.
I would establish an extrajudicial death squad that oversaw the summary execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers who have already been convicted and sentenced. This extrajudicial force would answer only to me. I'd have prisons hand over these inmates to the death squad, which would escort them to a certain facility elsewhere and execute them. Murderers would usually be executed within a week of conviction.
Here come the overwhelmingly bad ideas, huh? The biggest problem with this is what's bolded. Your not infalliable, and no part of the judicial system should ever be based on only one individual's sense of justice or morality. Not you, me, or anyone else.
I would make Voter ID mandatory but also make them easy/cheap/free to get.
I wouldn't want vote ID laws, but if they were to exist, they should be done like this.
I would severely reduce media bias by whatever means necessary.
Agree, except there'd need to be a way to prevent the government itself from spinning things.

I would implement a progressive income tax. I'd raise taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor.
Agree.
I would reduce the number of regulations that are put on people trying to start their own businesses.
Sure.
I would raise the military budget to a steady 700 billion a year.
Just checked. Military spending is over 50%, as it is. If all else stayed the same, this would raise it to nearly 2/3 of discretionary spending. Don't really think that's sensible.
Foreign Policy: I would rename NATO the "Allied Powers Treaty Organization" (APTO) so that it could be expanded far beyond the North Atlantic region. I would try to expand APTO as much as I could; Ukraine would be offered APTO membership and if they accepted I would have Crimea invaded by a large military force and restored to Ukrainian hands. Then I'd do the same in the Donbass region. After Ukraine's territorial sovereignty was restored I'd drop all sanctions on Russia. I would burn all foreign opium poppy and cocaine plant fields in countries where it is illegal; in countries where legal, I would do so anyway if rates of smuggling into the U.S. exceeded a certain point. I would limit the number of refugees from countries suffering from large amounts of terrorism; instead, I would try to end the conflict in question, by military force if necessary. I would not try to use immigration policy to slow the white loss of majority status.
Sure are incredibly interventionist, aren't you?
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 5:29:06 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 5:27:36 AM, Torton wrote:
I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else).
I don't agree with the harshness towards growing small scale farms for personal use, but otherwise good.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 5:53:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 5:27:36 AM, Torton wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
If I were to become President of the United States in January 2017, here's how I would run the country:

I would outlaw abortion.
How would you enforce it?

How do you enforce any law?

I would abolish laws which restrict access to non-abortifacient contraceptives. I would subsidize condoms.
I don't know about a subsidy, but a lot more people should use contraceptives.
I would reduce regulations on adoption and foster care; gay couples would be allowed to adopt like straight couples do.
Agreed.
I would end racial profiling and change affirmative action to be income-based instead of race-based. I would try to reduce racial bias among police officers.
Good ideas.
I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else).
I don't agree with growing small scale farms for personal use, but otherwise good.
I would establish an extrajudicial death squad that oversaw the summary execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers who have already been convicted and sentenced. This extrajudicial force would answer only to me. I'd have prisons hand over these inmates to the death squad, which would escort them to a certain facility elsewhere and execute them. Murderers would usually be executed within a week of conviction.
Here come the overwhelmingly bad ideas, huh? The biggest problem with this is what's bolded. Your not infalliable, and no part of the judicial system should ever be based on only one individual's sense of justice or morality. Not you, me, or anyone else.

Our system is broken. Nobody is ever deterred by the death penalty because if I were to kill someone today I'd have maybe a 25% chance of being sentenced to death and it'd take 25 years for the day of my execution to finally arrive. Also, I would be able to go through this complex, time-consuming, and expensive process of appealing in court for a change in my sentence which would end up making the death penalty cost more than a life sentence. Since part of the purpose of the death penalty is deterrence, ans another part is cheapness compared to locking someone up and keeping him alive for decades, how about we actually have a system of capital punishment that can actually pull this off? The best way to ensure a system of cheap, swift, deterrent justice is the authoritarian extrajudicial approach. The murder rate would probably drop 80% after the first year.

I would make Voter ID mandatory but also make them easy/cheap/free to get.
I wouldn't want vote ID laws, but if they were to exist, they should be done like this.
I would severely reduce media bias by whatever means necessary.
Agree, except there'd need to be a way to prevent the government itself from spinning things.

I would implement a progressive income tax. I'd raise taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor.
Agree.
I would reduce the number of regulations that are put on people trying to start their own businesses.
Sure.
I would raise the military budget to a steady 700 billion a year.
Just checked. Military spending is over 50%, as it is. If all else stayed the same, this would raise it to nearly 2/3 of discretionary spending. Don't really think that's sensible.

You do realize that GDP percentage-wise we're spending a fraction of what we spent on our military during the Cold War, right? We could hit 1 trillion and that'd barely exceed 5% of our GDP. I'm pretty sure that at its Cold War height we were spending 10% of our economy on the military.

Foreign Policy: I would rename NATO the "Allied Powers Treaty Organization" (APTO) so that it could be expanded far beyond the North Atlantic region. I would try to expand APTO as much as I could; Ukraine would be offered APTO membership and if they accepted I would have Crimea invaded by a large military force and restored to Ukrainian hands. Then I'd do the same in the Donbass region. After Ukraine's territorial sovereignty was restored I'd drop all sanctions on Russia. I would burn all foreign opium poppy and cocaine plant fields in countries where it is illegal; in countries where legal, I would do so anyway if rates of smuggling into the U.S. exceeded a certain point. I would limit the number of refugees from countries suffering from large amounts of terrorism; instead, I would try to end the conflict in question, by military force if necessary. I would not try to use immigration policy to slow the white loss of majority status.
Sure are incredibly interventionist, aren't you?

That I am. I believe that the U.S. military can be and should be used as a force for upholding international law and preventing the rise of terror States.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 6:53:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Interesting. If a country decides by consensus to run it's law through Shariah, Would you intervene?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 7:22:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 6:53:01 PM, Nivek wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Interesting. If a country decides by consensus to run it's law through Shariah, Would you intervene?

No
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Subutai
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 7:41:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
If I were to become President of the United States in January 2017, here's how I would run the country:

Social Issues: I would outlaw abortion. I would abolish laws which restrict access to non-abortifacient contraceptives. I would subsidize condoms.

I fully support the latter two. But abortion, particularly early-term abortion, should not be condemned. The concept of life is tenuous at best, and there's certainly a good portion of a fetus's existence that it shouldn't be considered alive.
I would reduce regulations on adoption and foster care; gay couples would be allowed to adopt like straight couples do.

Fantastic idea.
I would deport all illegal immigrants and secure the border but allow for much more extensive cross-border work programs like those that existed until Cesar Chavez came along.

That's a bit harsh. I actually haven't thought my views through too thoroughly on this, but I'd at least give the illegal immigrants a path of citizenship (with the implied terms and conditions) first.
I would end racial profiling and change affirmative action to be income-based instead of race-based. I would try to reduce racial bias among police officers.

Companies not hiring poor people because they are poor is a much less pervasive problem than companies nor hiring people of a specific race because they are that specific race. And how would you reduce racial bias among police officers?
I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else).

I like the first part, but the latter part is downright ridiculous. Execute people for producing drugs? We don't even execute the majority of murderers.
I would establish an extrajudicial death squad that oversaw the summary execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers who have already been convicted and sentenced. This extrajudicial force would answer only to me. I'd have prisons hand over these inmates to the death squad, which would escort them to a certain facility elsewhere and execute them. Murderers would usually be executed within a week of conviction.

What makes this any different from the current system? The main problem with the death penalty is the seemingly endless cycle of appeals inmates request that delays execution for a very long time. Would you eliminate this as an option? Also, I have a serious problem with your force being answerable only to you. Democracy works best under a system of checks and balances.
I would make Voter ID mandatory but also make them easy/cheap/free to get

Voter IDs fix an imaginary problem, and only serve to block some people, no matter how easy the restrictions are to meet, from voting, which is antithetical to democracy.
I would severely reduce media bias by whatever means necessary.

How? Seems near impossible.
Economy: I would implement a progressive income tax. I'd raise taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor.

I like this.
I would reduce the number of regulations that are put on people trying to start their own businesses.

Like what specifically?
I would end social security completely.

Seems like a good idea with the ever decreasing birth rate. We're just going to have more and more people dependent on a system funded by fewer and fewer people. It seemed to be a good idea back when it was introduced, but it's silly now.
I would raise the military budget to a steady 700 billion a year.

Our military budget already far exceeds that of all other nations. There's no point in raising it.
I would not significantly alter the status quo on forms of welfare other than Social Security, though I would eliminate subsidies on some things.

I would personally change the current welfare system, but that's not too important.

I would spend money on restoring our nation's infrastructure.

Fantastic idea.
And throughout all this the U.S. National Debt would be lowered slightly each year of my administration. Perhaps a net 250 billion dollar reduction each year.

I know it's far beyond your means to make a spreadsheet to prove that your plan is viable with your goal, but I'm always skeptical of claims that the debt is going to be reduced by X each year by doing Y.
I would give up more public land for private use, though not an insane amount of land.

It does seem like the federal government owns a lot of land.

I would provide more funding to NASA, especially funding for economic exploitation of outer space.

Another fantastic idea. And not just for purely scientific reasons. Creating an effective asteroid defense, establishing colonies on other bodies in the solar system, and mining asteroids need to be thought out and implemented soon.
Foreign Policy: I would rename NATO the "Allied Powers Treaty Organization" (APTO) so that it could be expanded far beyond the North Atlantic region. I would try to expand APTO as much as I could;

Ok, I see no problem with this.
Ukraine would be offered APTO membership and if they accepted I would have Crimea invaded by a large military force and restored to Ukrainian hands. Then I'd do the same in the Donbass region. After Ukraine's territorial sovereignty was restored I'd drop all sanctions on Russia.

This is an absolutely terrible idea and for one reason - Russia. You assume they're just going to stand idle as you reconquer everything they've conquered, and they're most certainly not. At best, a new cold war will be ushered in. At worst, World War III would start.
I would burn all foreign opium poppy and cocaine plant fields in countries where it is illegal;

With or without there consent?
countries where legal, I would do so anyway if rates of smuggling into the U.S. exceeded a certain point.

At best, you can place restriction on that opium reaching the US. You can't simply invade a country because their laws are different from your own. That's incredibly militaristic.
I would limit the number of refugees from countries suffering from large amounts of terrorism; instead, I would try to end the conflict in question, by military force if necessary.

Define "limit". Use stringent background checks? Make quotas? And just because a war has refugees doesn't mean you have the right to intervene in it.
I would not try to use immigration policy to slow the white loss of majority status.

I like to think that, at least in the developed world, we are heading towards individual racial heterogeneity, so this is a non-problem anyway.
And how about you? What would be you do?

I'm not sure. I don't have a comprehensive plan out. I have a few core ideas, but nothing too specific.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 7:43:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
If I were to become President of the United States in January 2017, here's how I would run the country:

Social Issues: I would outlaw abortion.

Noooooo......

I would reduce regulations on adoption and foster care; gay couples would be allowed to adopt like straight couples do.

Yes, I do agree with this policy.

I would deport all illegal immigrants and secure the border but allow for much more extensive cross-border work programs like those that existed until Cesar Chavez came along.

I don't entirely agree with you here. I think that there should be some kind of assessment of their situation. If they've got a valid reason (in the eyes of the law), then they should be allowed to stay - this would be in rare circumstances though. I totally agree on securing the border.

I would end racial profiling and change affirmative action to be income-based instead of race-based.

I completely disagree here on both points. Racial profiling to some degree is necessary. I agree that it needs to be massively reduced in the US but elimination of racial profiling would be detrimental. Income based affirmative action is also ridiculous. If people are making a lower amount of money then logically it is most likely because they aren't as intelligent as the richer person. The affirmative action system does need to be reformed, but not in this way.

I would try to reduce racial bias among police officers.

This is good but complete elimination is unnecessary.

I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else).

Agreed.

I would establish an extrajudicial death squad that oversaw the summary execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers who have already been convicted and sentenced.

Is that entirely necessary? Is there are reason why you'd want this to be implemented?

This extrajudicial force would answer only to me. I'd have prisons hand over these inmates to the death squad, which would escort them to a certain facility elsewhere and execute them. Murderers would usually be executed within a week of conviction. I would make Voter ID mandatory but also make them easy/cheap/free to get.

Death squad? The death penalty is not the solution. It needs to be abolished not reinforced.

I would severely reduce media bias by whatever means necessary.

How would you plan on doing this?

Economy: I would implement a progressive income tax.

Good, I would also do this.

I'd raise taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor.

Agreed.

I would reduce the number of regulations that are put on people trying to start their own businesses.

Really?

I would raise the military budget to a steady 700 billion a year.

Raise the military budget? We should be lowering it.

Thoughts?

Above.

And how about you? What would be you do?

I'll give this in a bit.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:02:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 7:41:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
If I were to become President of the United States in January 2017, here's how I would run the country:

Social Issues: I would outlaw abortion. I would abolish laws which restrict access to non-abortifacient contraceptives. I would subsidize condoms.

I fully support the latter two. But abortion, particularly early-term abortion, should not be condemned. The concept of life is tenuous at best, and there's certainly a good portion of a fetus's existence that it shouldn't be considered alive.
I would reduce regulations on adoption and foster care; gay couples would be allowed to adopt like straight couples do.

Fantastic idea.
I would deport all illegal immigrants and secure the border but allow for much more extensive cross-border work programs like those that existed until Cesar Chavez came along.

That's a bit harsh. I actually haven't thought my views through too thoroughly on this, but I'd at least give the illegal immigrants a path of citizenship (with the implied terms and conditions) first.
I would end racial profiling and change affirmative action to be income-based instead of race-based. I would try to reduce racial bias among police officers.

Companies not hiring poor people because they are poor is a much less pervasive problem than companies nor hiring people of a specific race because they are that specific race. And how would you reduce racial bias among police officers?

The "I don't hire niggers" mentality is mostly dead. Blacks mainly have problem with employment because of their impoverished backgrounds, poor education, and the criminal records which follow this. Race-based affirmative action excludes impoverished whites, includes middle-class blacks, and as a racially biased program is inherently unconstitutional.

I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else).

I like the first part, but the latter part is downright ridiculous. Execute people for producing drugs? We don't even execute the majority of murderers.

We would execute almost all murderers under my administration.

I would establish an extrajudicial death squad that oversaw the summary execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers who have already been convicted and sentenced. This extrajudicial force would answer only to me. I'd have prisons hand over these inmates to the death squad, which would escort them to a certain facility elsewhere and execute them. Murderers would usually be executed within a week of conviction.

What makes this any different from the current system? The main problem with the death penalty is the seemingly endless cycle of appeals inmates request that delays execution for a very long time. Would you eliminate this as an option? Also, I have a serious problem with your force being answerable only to you. Democracy works best under a system of checks and balances.

There would be no appeals anymore. Once it is officially established that you committed X crime, that's it. You're dead in a week. Capital Punishment as it exists today provides absolutely no deterrent to crime and has actually become more expensive than life imprisonment. Something drastic needs to change, and I feel that doing so would make America an incredibly safer place within just a year or two.

I would make Voter ID mandatory but also make them easy/cheap/free to get

Voter IDs fix an imaginary problem, and only serve to block some people, no matter how easy the restrictions are to meet, from voting, which is antithetical to democracy.

Just saying: there are regulations placed on everything else, even regulations that make access somewhat harder. Restrictions are even on the constitutional right of gun ownership. Also, there are cases where elections have been won by incredibly small margins so voter fraud can on occasion determine who wins.

I would severely reduce media bias by whatever means necessary.

How? Seems near impossible.
Economy: I would implement a progressive income tax. I'd raise taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor.

I like this.
I would reduce the number of regulations that are put on people trying to start their own businesses.

Like what specifically?
I would end social security completely.

Seems like a good idea with the ever decreasing birth rate. We're just going to have more and more people dependent on a system funded by fewer and fewer people. It seemed to be a good idea back when it was introduced, but it's silly now.
I would raise the military budget to a steady 700 billion a year.

Our military budget already far exceeds that of all other nations. There's no point in raising it.
I would not significantly alter the status quo on forms of welfare other than Social Security, though I would eliminate subsidies on some things.

I would personally change the current welfare system, but that's not too important.

I would spend money on restoring our nation's infrastructure.

Fantastic idea.
And throughout all this the U.S. National Debt would be lowered slightly each year of my administration. Perhaps a net 250 billion dollar reduction each year.

Ukraine would be offered APTO membership and if they accepted I would have Crimea invaded by a large military force and restored to Ukrainian hands. Then I'd do the same in the Donbass region. After Ukraine's territorial sovereignty was restored I'd drop all sanctions on Russia.

This is an absolutely terrible idea and for one reason - Russia. You assume they're just going to stand idle as you reconquer everything they've conquered, and they're most certainly not. At best, a new cold war will be ushered in. At worst, World War III would start.

Russia does not want WWIII. Invading Crimea and Donbass will not start WWIII. The Russians would be teed as bleep and it may even devolve into a situation where both sides are dumping tons of soldiers into battlefield Crimea but that'd probably be the extent of it. If anything, Ukraine joining NATO would make the Alliance much stronger and further deter Russian aggression in Europe.

I would burn all foreign opium poppy and cocaine plant fields in countries where it is illegal;

With or without there consent?

If the drugs are already illegal there anyway then why does it matter?

countries where legal, I would do so anyway if rates of smuggling into the U.S. exceeded a certain point.

At best, you can place restriction on that opium reaching the US. You can't simply invade a country because their laws are different from your own. That's incredibly militaristic.

Having drugs legal in your own country is one thing; but whenever your drug legalization affects countries where illegal then the country where it's illegal has a right to take action. Also, I'm not talking about invasion and occupation. It'd be kind of like drone strikes. Many of their fields are suddenly set ablaze from American aircraft and that's the end of it.

I would limit the number of refugees from countries suffering from large amounts of terrorism; instead, I would try to end the conflict in question, by military force if necessary.

Define "limit". Use stringent background checks? Make quotas? And just because a war has refugees doesn't mean you have the right to intervene in it.

The U.S. has a right to take action whenever it begins affecting us. By "limits" I mean quotas.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:09:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 7:43:14 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
If I were to become President of the United States in January 2017, here's how I would run the country:

Social Issues: I would outlaw abortion.

Noooooo......

I would reduce regulations on adoption and foster care; gay couples would be allowed to adopt like straight couples do.

Yes, I do agree with this policy.

I would deport all illegal immigrants and secure the border but allow for much more extensive cross-border work programs like those that existed until Cesar Chavez came along.

I don't entirely agree with you here. I think that there should be some kind of assessment of their situation. If they've got a valid reason (in the eyes of the law), then they should be allowed to stay - this would be in rare circumstances though. I totally agree on securing the border.

I would end racial profiling and change affirmative action to be income-based instead of race-based.

I completely disagree here on both points. Racial profiling to some degree is necessary. I agree that it needs to be massively reduced in the US but elimination of racial profiling would be detrimental. Income based affirmative action is also ridiculous. If people are making a lower amount of money then logically it is most likely because they aren't as intelligent as the richer person. The affirmative action system does need to be reformed, but not in this way.

I would try to reduce racial bias among police officers.

This is good but complete elimination is unnecessary.

I would make illicit drug usage and possession legal and free many people currently incarcerated for simply having used illicit drugs but I'd make drug production and distribution a capital crime (this includes growing or synthesizing your own drugs, regardless of whether you plan on selling it or giving it to somebody else).

Agreed.

I would establish an extrajudicial death squad that oversaw the summary execution of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers who have already been convicted and sentenced.

Is that entirely necessary? Is there are reason why you'd want this to be implemented?

I've been over this several times in this thread. Please go over some of the above posts to see why.

This extrajudicial force would answer only to me. I'd have prisons hand over these inmates to the death squad, which would escort them to a certain facility elsewhere and execute them. Murderers would usually be executed within a week of conviction. I would make Voter ID mandatory but also make them easy/cheap/free to get.

Death squad? The death penalty is not the solution. It needs to be abolished not reinforced.

I would severely reduce media bias by whatever means necessary.

How would you plan on doing this?

I don't really know, TBH.

Economy: I would implement a progressive income tax.

Good, I would also do this.

I'd raise taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor.

Agreed.

I would reduce the number of regulations that are put on people trying to start their own businesses.

Really?

I would raise the military budget to a steady 700 billion a year.

Raise the military budget? We should be lowering it.

Thoughts?

Above.

And how about you? What would be you do?

I'll give this in a bit.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:22:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Okay, so: I don't have a clue how to go about tackling media bias. What I do know with absolutely certainty, however, is that drastic change is needed.

Remember the Oregon Standoff? Well, I don't really know what side was in the right. But the media did absolutely everything in its power to make the occupiers look like the bad guys. It made it look like the entire town was against them whenever one article had vaguely mentioned that the issue "divided the town", meaning that probably around half of the locals supported the occupiers. Yet they spun it to look like there was unanimous dislike for Bundy's group! They also did their best to make the occupiers look like spoiled brats and screaming children and they only cited statistics which made the occupiers look bad.
At the absolute minimum, most of the journalists who covered the Oregon Standoff should've been fired and living under bridges today. But guess what: the Oregon Standoff is just one example of borderline evil media bias.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Subutai
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 4:23:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:02:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/7/2016 7:41:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The "I don't hire niggers" mentality is mostly dead. Blacks mainly have problem with employment because of their impoverished backgrounds, poor education, and the criminal records which follow this. Race-based affirmative action excludes impoverished whites, includes middle-class blacks, and as a racially biased program is inherently unconstitutional.

But there have been studies that have shown that, if two candidates of with exactly the same resumes are applying for a position at a company, if one candidate has a traditionally white name and the other has a traditionally black name, the former candidate is much more likely to be hired, even though the latter is just as qualified as that person is. And even if it is unconstitutional, do you want to live in a country where this happens?
We would execute almost all murderers under my administration.

That doesn't make your position any less harsh. What you're arguing for is ridiculous. Executing drug makers is the height of excessive punishment.
There would be no appeals anymore. Once it is officially established that you committed X crime, that's it. You're dead in a week. Capital Punishment as it exists today provides absolutely no deterrent to crime and has actually become more expensive than life imprisonment. Something drastic needs to change, and I feel that doing so would make America an incredibly safer place within just a year or two.


I agree that the death penalty policy needs to be reformed, but that's not the direction I want it to be taken in. There's no room for context, and the appeals process helps free innocent prisoners who would have been executed without it. I don't think your method would make the death penalty any stronger of a deterrent than it already is, as the prospect of death is still there.
Just saying: there are regulations placed on everything else, even regulations that make access somewhat harder. Restrictions are even on the constitutional right of gun ownership. Also, there are cases where elections have been won by incredibly small margins so voter fraud can on occasion determine who wins.

But the restrictions on gun ownership are meant to protect people. Without them, mentally unstable people would have access to weapons. And while you make a good case about tight elections, in those cases, the votes would be scrutinized so much that any abnormalities would be detected and eliminated anyway. The problem is simply too small to deny so many people access.
Russia does not want WWIII. Invading Crimea and Donbass will not start WWIII. The Russians would be teed as bleep and it may even devolve into a situation where both sides are dumping tons of soldiers into battlefield Crimea but that'd probably be the extent of it. If anything, Ukraine joining NATO would make the Alliance much stronger and further deter Russian aggression in Europe.


You seem to think Russia is not strong enough militarily to cause major problems if something like this were to occur. Causing this to happen is not going to destroy Russia's position in Europe, at least not immediately.
If the drugs are already illegal there anyway then why does it matter?

I'm pretty sure those countries are going to have problems if a foreign country decides to enforce their own laws.
Having drugs legal in your own country is one thing; but whenever your drug legalization affects countries where illegal then the country where it's illegal has a right to take action. Also, I'm not talking about invasion and occupation. It'd be kind of like drone strikes. Many of their fields are suddenly set ablaze from American aircraft and that's the end of it.

But this is, in effect, a declaration of war on that country. You've bombed them without their consent. America doesn't have the right to just go into other countries and bomb whatever doesn't agree with their laws.
The U.S. has a right to take action whenever it begins affecting us. By "limits" I mean quotas.

But every war affects us, at least indirectly.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 5:11:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/10/2016 4:23:24 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:02:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/7/2016 7:41:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:44:17 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:


But there have been studies that have shown that, if two candidates of with exactly the same resumes are applying for a position at a company, if one candidate has a traditionally white name and the other has a traditionally black name, the former candidate is much more likely to be hired, even though the latter is just as qualified as that person is.

That's what one study suggests. It could also be argued that for every subconscious bigot there's a person who tries to pick the black guy so as to avoid discriminating against the black guy or simply to make himself look better.
In any case, there should be no law which gives you blanket privileges or excludes you from these privileges just for the color of your skin and with no regard for any form of context which comes with each individual case.

We would execute almost all murderers under my administration.

That doesn't make your position any less harsh. What you're arguing for is ridiculous. Executing drug makers is the height of excessive punishment.

I disagree, though I can certainly understand why you'd think that.

There would be no appeals anymore. Once it is officially established that you committed X crime, that's it. You're dead in a week. Capital Punishment as it exists today provides absolutely no deterrent to crime and has actually become more expensive than life imprisonment. Something drastic needs to change, and I feel that doing so would make America an incredibly safer place within just a year or two.


Just saying: there are regulations placed on everything else, even regulations that make access somewhat harder. Restrictions are even on the constitutional right of gun ownership. Also, there are cases where elections have been won by incredibly small margins so voter fraud can on occasion determine who wins.

I think that *some* innocent people would inevitably be executed, though nobody would be executed until the courts decide that there is sufficient evidence to convict you for the crime in question. Simply being arrested for the crime won't be enough and nobody will be executed just out of a whim without the question of "Is this person really guilty?" being asked.
I disagree that the simple threat of any random form of capital punishment is enough. Whenever they are told that they'll be executed in 15 to 20 years, they'll just be like "I don't give a bleep because that's practically forever from now". Plus, like I said, people know that if they commit a murder under our present system life imprisonment (if even that) is much more likely. The assured threat of execution within a few months of committing the crime, on the other hand, should be enough for the murder rate to noticeably drop; that our nation's half-@$$ed methods have failed to deter should not be used as evidence that stuff like what I'm proposing will fail to deter.

But the restrictions on gun ownership are meant to protect people. Without them, mentally unstable people would have access to weapons. And while you make a good case about tight elections, in those cases, the votes would be scrutinized so much that any abnormalities would be detected and eliminated anyway. The problem is simply too small to deny so many people access.

There are so many contrasting claims and reports on voter fraud that it cannot be conclusively said it doesn't happen. By the definition of voter fraud it is an activity that the perpetrators generally try to keep hidden. If I'm not mistaken, according to one report several hundred felons within a single county in the 2012 presidential election cast votes. And if it is not a big problem now it may well be so in the future; is it really necessary to wait until then to tackle voter fraud?
Though it may make some more apathetic people unwilling to put up with the little bit of extra trouble (and, as a result, not register). In fact, I don't think that currently it can even be determined whether poor people can't afford voter registration or they're simply not willing to lose a little extra cash that they are in fact able to part with. That is, that they CANNOT afford it probably cannot be proven. What matters is whether or not the poor people who are willing to put up with a somewhat more complicated and time-consuming registration process are capable of doing so. Those who are simply unmotivated don't matter here at all. Given that under my plan it would literally be paid for by the Government and that the only thing it'd cost you would be the time spent registering, I don't see how the bleep it would disenfranchise the willing poor.

Russia does not want WWIII. Invading Crimea and Donbass will not start WWIII. The Russians would be teed as bleep and it may even devolve into a situation where both sides are dumping tons of soldiers into battlefield Crimea but that'd probably be the extent of it. If anything, Ukraine joining NATO would make the Alliance much stronger and further deter Russian aggression in Europe.


You seem to think Russia is not strong enough militarily to cause major problems if something like this were to occur. Causing this to happen is not going to destroy Russia's position in Europe, at least not immediately.

Ukraine has one of the largest armies in Europe. Ukraine could be used as the perfect launchpad for invading Russia. There would enormous benefits to NATO if Ukraine joined. In the short term it may make Russia more aggressive as they'd act out to try to stop this but after it became settled that Ukraine was with NATO they'd be more willing to resolve disputes with European states through peaceful means and less likely to try to use intimidation against them. Benefits to NATO's strength aside, the Ukrainians would be able to sleep soundly at night because they'd know now the Russians couldn't attack them.

If the drugs are already illegal there anyway then why does it matter?

I'm pretty sure those countries are going to have problems if a foreign country decides to enforce their own laws.

If they don't want the U.S. reacting then they can do a better job enforcing these laws. Heroin and cocaine imported here from overseas has a massive effect on the US, so such an intervention could rightfully be considered self-defense. The U.S. would have a right to do it.

Having drugs legal in your own country is one thing; but whenever your drug legalization affects countries where illegal then the country where it's illegal has a right to take action. Also, I'm not talking about invasion and occupation. It'd be kind of like drone strikes. Many of their fields are suddenly set ablaze from American aircraft and that's the end of it.

But this is, in effect, a declaration of war on that country. You've bombed them without their consent. America doesn't have the right to just go into other countries and bomb whatever doesn't agree with their laws.
The U.S. has a right to take action whenever it begins affecting us. By "limits" I mean quotas.

But every war affects us

Let me rephrase that: if a war SIGNIFICANTLY affects us, then we have a right to take action. The U.S. would be put into a situation where it had a moral responsibility to not subject its civilians to any increased risk of terror (which letting in the refugees would violate). If as few as 20 Americans would die at the hands of refugee terrorists or gangs, that'd be 20 too many and the U.S. should not let the refugees in.
At the same time, though, the U.S. would have a moral responsibility to not let the refugees just keel over and die. The optimal way to fulfil both of these responsibilities would be to cause the war (or at least large-scale fighting) to end as soon as possible.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Subutai
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 2:57:55 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 5:11:43 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
That's what one study suggests. It could also be argued that for every subconscious bigot there's a person who tries to pick the black guy so as to avoid discriminating against the black guy or simply to make himself look better.
In any case, there should be no law which gives you blanket privileges or excludes you from these privileges just for the color of your skin and with no regard for any form of context which comes with each individual case.

I honestly have no idea how I'd implement an affirmative action program, but unconscious bias is a serious problem in today's world. And unconscious bias negatively affects those who are traditionally considered minorities (African-Americans, women, homosexuals, etc...). I would not support quotas of any kind, as I do believe in a meritocracy. But unconscious bias is a problem even in a meritocracy.
I think that *some* innocent people would inevitably be executed, though nobody would be executed until the courts decide that there is sufficient evidence to convict you for the crime in question. Simply being arrested for the crime won't be enough and nobody will be executed just out of a whim without the question of "Is this person really guilty?" being asked.
I disagree that the simple threat of any random form of capital punishment is enough. Whenever they are told that they'll be executed in 15 to 20 years, they'll just be like "I don't give a bleep because that's practically forever from now". Plus, like I said, people know that if they commit a murder under our present system life imprisonment (if even that) is much more likely. The assured threat of execution within a few months of committing the crime, on the other hand, should be enough for the murder rate to noticeably drop; that our nation's half-@$$ed methods have failed to deter should not be used as evidence that stuff like what I'm proposing will fail to deter.

I disagree with both your points. The appeals system has exonerated dozens of criminals who were going to be executed without it. Sure, it's easy to argue that the original trials should be better coordinated, but I'm sure there're already as good as they can be. And yes, the mere threat of death is, I think, enough to deter the people that are going to be deterred. Not all executions take 20 years to go through, and they live in constant fear that they will be executed the next day. It's not like the criminals are the master of their own destiny when it comes to deciding when they die.
There are so many contrasting claims and reports on voter fraud that it cannot be conclusively said it doesn't happen. By the definition of voter fraud it is an activity that the perpetrators generally try to keep hidden. If I'm not mistaken, according to one report several hundred felons within a single county in the 2012 presidential election cast votes. And if it is not a big problem now it may well be so in the future; is it really necessary to wait until then to tackle voter fraud?
Though it may make some more apathetic people unwilling to put up with the little bit of extra trouble (and, as a result, not register). In fact, I don't think that currently it can even be determined whether poor people can't afford voter registration or they're simply not willing to lose a little extra cash that they are in fact able to part with. That is, that they CANNOT afford it probably cannot be proven. What matters is whether or not the poor people who are willing to put up with a somewhat more complicated and time-consuming registration process are capable of doing so. Those who are simply unmotivated don't matter here at all. Given that under my plan it would literally be paid for by the Government and that the only thing it'd cost you would be the time spent registering, I don't see how the bleep it would disenfranchise the willing poor.

There was a comprehensive study done by the Brennan Center for Justice conducted that showed that the problem of voter fraud is extremely small. It argues that, "Our report "The Truth About Voter Fraud" reveals most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless " and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct." (https://www.brennancenter.org...; full study may be found here: http://www.brennancenter.org...)

For some people, it would take an extreme amount of work for them to obtain a voter ID, much more than they should be burdened with. Whether by an absurd amount of money needed to obtain a voter ID to the trouble it would take for some people to go about getting what they need to obtain a voter ID, the troubles for some people would be large, and sometimes, insurmountable. And, given that the number of people who would be disenfranchised as a result of the voter ID laws would be much greater than the number of fraudulent votes (as shown above), there's no reason to do so.
Ukraine has one of the largest armies in Europe. Ukraine could be used as the perfect launchpad for invading Russia. There would enormous benefits to NATO if Ukraine joined. In the short term it may make Russia more aggressive as they'd act out to try to stop this but after it became settled that Ukraine was with NATO they'd be more willing to resolve disputes with European states through peaceful means and less likely to try to use intimidation against them. Benefits to NATO's strength aside, the Ukrainians would be able to sleep soundly at night because they'd know now the Russians couldn't attack them.

Sure, Ukraine's military is large, but by no means as large as Russia's (http://gdb.rferl.org...). There'd be no way the dispute could be settled in Ukraine's favor without a large international backing, which would inevitably result in another world war. I'd still think NATO would win, but it would be an incredibly costly victory.
If they don't want the U.S. reacting then they can do a better job enforcing these laws. Heroin and cocaine imported here from overseas has a massive effect on the US, so such an intervention could rightfully be considered self-defense. The U.S. would have a right to do it.

That's not how it works. Just because a country's police force is unable to completely stop heroin production doesn't mean that other countries have the right to rectify that fact. There are more than enough ways the U.S. could handle drug smuggling, which they do.
Let me rephrase that: if a war SIGNIFICANTLY affects us, then we have a right to take action. The U.S. would be put into a situation where it had a moral responsibility to not subject its civilians to any increased risk of terror (which letting in the refugees would violate). If as few as 20 Americans would die at the hands of refugee terrorists or gangs, that'd be 20 too many and the U.S. should not let the refugees in.
At the same time, though, the U.S. would have a moral responsibility to not let the refugees just keel over and die. The optimal way to fulfil both of these responsibilities would be to cause the war (or at least large-scale fighting) to end as soon as possible.

This sets way too dangerous of a precedence. The danger of terrorist is always present, and just because a war is displacing people that have been known to commit acts of terrorism does not grant every other country the right to intervene in that way.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.